John Larsen wrote:Don't pretend that by accepting a dogma you are somehow more open to possibilities. I am willing to believe anything there is evidence for. I am unwilling to believe nothing there is no evidence for.
Define "evidence".
Main Entry: 1ev·i·dence Pronunciation: \ˈe-və-dən(t)s, -və-ˌden(t)s\ Function: noun Date: 14th century
1 a : an outward sign : indication b : something that furnishes proof : testimony; specifically : something legally submitted to a tribunal to ascertain the truth of a matter 2 : one who bears witness; especially : one who voluntarily confesses a crime and testifies for the prosecution against his accomplices
Gadianton wrote:ttribe, are you open, I mean, really open, to reincarnation? How about the prophecies of Nostradamus?
I don't just mean you respect others who believe in reincarnation, but you really are open to there being something to it because as you say, science doesn't know everything...
Haven't really given either much thought. However, I'm sure you'll keep pushing this to some extreme in an effort to make me look unwilling to follow my own principle.
1 a : an outward sign : indication b : something that furnishes proof : testimony; specifically : something legally submitted to a tribunal to ascertain the truth of a matter 2 : one who bears witness; especially : one who voluntarily confesses a crime and testifies for the prosecution against his accomplices
I didn't mean the dictionary definition. I meant for John to describe what he accepts as evidence in his life, etc.
Somehow apologists got this notion in their heads that there is no evidence for a given anachronism in the Book of Mormon when there is actually evidence against the anachronism.
Take horses again. Sure, it's easy to say, "just because they haven't found horse bones doesn't mean horses don't exist." However, the reality is that there are many, MANY more supplemental evidences that support no horses in Mesoamerica. The same could be said for many of the other anachronism that we find in the Book of Mormon.
If there's one thing I've learned from this board, it's that consensual sex with multiple partners is okay unless God commands it. - Abman
I find this place to be hostile toward all brands of stupidity. That's why I like it. - Some Schmo
Sethbag wrote:Anyhow, you make my case for me. You are obviously a smart and clever man, and your mind is very good at problem-solving. In this case the problems are anachronisms in the Book of Mormon. You don't wish to accept that the Book of Mormon isn't actually authentic, so you "solve" the problems by resorting to word redefinition and other hand-waving exercises about "tight" vs. "loose" translation.
There's an obvious explanation for the steel bow in 1 Nephi, and you and I both know what it is. Joseph (or Sidney, or whoever) read "bow of steel" in 2nd Samuel and decided it would be cool if Nephi had one too. That's because whoever it was didn't realize that the KJV translator's use of "steel" in the early 1600s for whatever Hebrew word appeared in the original text was not really an apt translation anymore, and it really meant something like bronze or whatever. So the Book of Mormon author goes on about Nephi's bow, which was made of fine steel. It's pretty plain what is meant here, and that this is simply anachronistic. You are forced to problem-solve to get around this, and you do so, and satisfy yourself with the answers.
This has nothing to do with your IQ vs. my IQ, whatever they happen to be. This has everything to do with your desire to keep believing in the Book of Mormon being stronger than your desire to find out what is really true, and your willingness to engage in creative problem-solving in order to paper over the obvious evidentiary problems with the belief system.
I think the real issue on our disagreement over the use of the word "invented" is one of use talking past each other. To the extent that you are using that word to describe an effort to explain an "unknown", I'm okay with that. I was taking exception to your use of the word to describe personal (and foundational) spiritual evidences.
You seem to be saying that horse really meant some other animal in Mesoamerica, possibly Llama or Tapir. While we don't know all the translation methods used, it is apparent that God had the ability to give Joseph words for animals which Joseph has never seen. See Cumom and Curelom. So why didn't God give Joseph Smith the word "tapir" or "llama"? Why would God give Joseph Smith the word "horse" for something that wasn't a horse? Same goes for ox, or sheep.
.
.
No. That's not what I am saying. First, there are two possibilities on the anachronistic - the "frame of reference" was either applied by the writer (i.e. Nephi et al.) or in the translation. The presence of "Cumom and Curelom" are supportive of this position insomuch as they are the inverse of the anachronistic - there either was no frame of reference for the writer (so they made up a name) or for the translator, or both. None of this is inconceivable, by any stretch.
Gadianton Plumber wrote:I would love to hear your own definition, T.
Too many conversations...suffice it to say that I am willing to accept both the physical and the spiritual (or the tangible and the intangible) when it comes to matters of the soul.
Scottie wrote:Somehow apologists got this notion in their heads that there is no evidence for a given anachronism in the Book of Mormon when there is actually evidence against the anachronism.
Take horses again. Sure, it's easy to say, "just because they haven't found horse bones doesn't mean horses don't exist." However, the reality is that there are many, MANY more supplemental evidences that support no horses in Mesoamerica. The same could be said for many of the other anachronism that we find in the Book of Mormon.